Talk:John Ashcroft

The "moderate/dead skunk" quote

I don't think this has any historical relevance to anything. Sorry to not have a sense of humor about it, but hey, that's life...

bad

you guys cannot cite an op/ed piece as a reference.

Ashcroft's Changing Position

This was blogged on kottke.org some time ago. I think this is very much worthy of mention. Anyone want to incorporate this? Before - http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm and after - http://news.com.com/2010-1071_3-983921.html

Neutrality

I have removed a number of POV references in this article. And while it's a great pastime painting Attorneys-General as the Great Satan, be it Reno or Ashcroft, it doesn't make a neutral article and that is the point. Libertas

Famous homophobe

So why isn't Ashcroft's homophobia mentioned in the article? Hmmmm? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashcroft and the Ku Klux Klan

John Ashcroft was caught on video at a "Good ol Boys" meeting in Lone Jack, MO. The "Good ol Boys" is a known Ku Klux Klan chapter. Someone with good research skills should find reliable sources on this and post this under the controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.192.67 (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Medical Marijuana

What is your view on medical use of marijuana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.152.242.217 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for general chit-chat. Ask somewhere else. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revisions

I'm writing here to put forth a number of suggestions about fixes to this article, which I will refrain from making directly because Mr. Ashcroft is a client of my employer. Although I believe all of my suggestions are clearly line with Wikipedia's policies, given that he is a much talked-about figure I think it best to make suggestions rather than direct edits. Note that these are only a few of the problems I see with this article, and merely the easiest to resolve:

Inappropriate link in body

The longest paragraph of the section U.S. Senator contains this line:

In the Republican primary, Ashcroft defeated Marc Perkel.[2]

That "[2]" is an external link to Mr. Perkel's personal site, which runs afoul of WP:ELPOINTS ("External links should not normally be used in the body of an article") and I submit that it should be removed.

Unsupported claims

The section Council of Conservative Citizens connections has several WP:BLP issues. This section relies entirely upon a Salon column[1] by Joe Conason, which does not make certain claims included in the section. One says Mr. Ashcroft

"had extensive previous contact with Bugel between 1987 and 1993"

Conason does say that Bugel "led a white militant faction" of the St. Louis school board at this time, but does not say Mr. Ashcroft had any contact with him, only that Mr. Ashcroft -- who was then Missouri's attorney general and governor -- should have known more about Mr. Bugel than he claimed in 2001. The section also says Mr. Ashcroft

"sided with Bugel."

The section does not say what, specifically, Mr. Ashcroft sided with him about. More to the point, the Conason column does not make a similar allegation. Lastly, this section concludes with a standalone paragraph which states:

"Ashcroft had previously denounced the CofCC as racist, after a controversial interview in Southern Partisan magazine in which he expressed views that were widely interpreted as pro-Confederacy."

No citation is given, but it seems clear that Conason's column again was the source, as Conason wrote: "Despite the pro-Confederate views he expressed in that interview, Ashcroft has taken pains to dissociate himself from the kind of racist and nativist positions taken by Baum and Bugel." A Google search"john+ashcroft"+"pro-confederate+views" revealed only a couple sources (none besides Conason approaching WP:RS) describing Ashcroft himself or his remarks to Southern Partisan as "pro-confederate," and Conasan's perspective alone cannot justify the phrase "widely interpreted." I suggest this be removed or rephrased to more accurately describe it as Conason's view.

Another sunsupported claim

A smaller issue occurs in the section CIA leak conflict of interest allegation, where it says Rep. John Conyers

"described this [Ashcroft allegedly being briefed on the FBI investigation of the Valerie Plame leak], and many other acts of Republicans as a 'stunning ethical breach that cries out for immediate investigation.'"

However, the source[2] makes clear that in this instance, Rep. Conyers was speaking only of Ashcroft and the investigation. Therefore, the clause "and many other acts of Republicans" should be removed.

Apparent "Coatrack" issue

Under the Controversies section there is a subsection titled Role in Alberto Gonzales resignation; however, there appears to be little controversy about Mr. Ashcroft's actions in this case. Indeed, he was in the hospital for the incident which dominates the first half of the section, and the central players were acting AG James Comey, White House CoS Andrew Card and WH counsel Alberto Gonzales. If nothing else, this does not belong in under Controversies. However, it strikes me as rather WP:COATRACK-y, in that it "ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." I submit that it be considered for removal, as it is not really about Mr. Ashcroft at all -- though it is positioned as a controversy surrounding him -- and all of this material is well-covered on the page about Mr. Gonzales.

Inappropriate external link

Lastly, External links contains a link to an essay titled "Dead Man Winning"[3] by an individual named Hugh Turley. This essay appears to be unpublished, except for being hosted on the personal website of a self-identified friend of Turley. I believe it should be removed per WP:ELNO, which states: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Needless to say, Mr. Turley does not meet these standards.

End of requests.

That may be a lot to digest, but I think the issues are fairly straightforward. I am appending a template requesting edits to the end of this section [note: I've moved it to the top, where it apparently belongs] but if there are questions about the issues in this article, I am happy to discuss. Thanks. NMS Bill (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Following this here from the note at BLP/N. Reviewing the proposed edits, they appear to be perfectly fine and appropriate corrections. I would have no problem with NMS making these edits; I think submitting edits for review, based on a conflict of interest, is sufficient - having a third party actually make the edits is unnecessary in my view. Nathan ^T 19:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Nathan. I will wait a bit longer, just in case someone does have an objection, but if as I assume there are not I will proceed with the edits as described above. NMS Bill (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well -- I found merit in your points. Collect (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Collect. I appreciate the help. I've completed the revisions as described above, removing the claims not supported by Conason's column and excising the lengthy section about Gonzales. Article still has numerous problems, but this is a good start. NMS Bill (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

NMSBill- i think it's great that you handled the matter as you did. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reeks of OR

Ashcroft's spokeswoman Mindy Tucker asserted that he had not known that Bugel was associated with the CofCC, when Bugel had been a member of the St. Louis school board vociferously defending segregation, and Ashcroft had been attorney general and governor of Missouri. During that period, Bugel's leadership of the local branch of the CofCC, the Metro South Citizens Council, was often noted in the media.[20]

This sounds like "Well, he said he didn't know, but the guy was prominent so he should have." That is textbook OR, and not appropriate.67.175.13.87 (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ashcroft soj.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ashcroft soj.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)